--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2006-09-14 02:09 ---
I am OK with a) or c), which ever is easier to implement. Thanks, Alan.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3181
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bu
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2006-09-14
01:56 ---
I guess we should update the section group count.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3182
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2006-09-14
01:55 ---
strip --strip-unneeded fixed with
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils-cvs/2006-09/msg00062.html
I'm unsure what to do about the plain strip case. We can
a) keep the group signature symbol anyway, or
b)
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2006-09-13 21:27 ---
It will be nice to add a bit to struct elf_link_hash_entry to indicate
a definiton is created by linker so that a backend can catch such a problem
much earlier.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=316
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifix dot com 2006-09-13 21:01
---
Subject: Re: elfxx-ia64.c doesn't support
@ltoff(@fptr(_DYNAMIC#))
On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 22:17 +, hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
> + (*_bfd_error_handler)
> + (_("%B:
Hello, I'm running this on my suse 10.0 with gcc 4.02, but it's the same on
suse 10.1:
../binutils-2.16.1/configure --target=arm-xscale-pe --with-headers
and it's also the same for all versions since 2.14 til today.
I get this error:
gcc -W -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototyp
--- Additional Comments From tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-09-13 10:22 ---
> > _DYNAMIC is a special symbol. I don't think Osprey uses it correctly, if it
> should be used by compiler at all.
I just noticed that GCC 4.1 and 4.2 use _DYNAMIC as well and lead to this ld
segfault.
--
http:
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |amodra at bigpond dot net
|redhat dot com |dot au
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2006-09-13
09:06 ---
Yes, it's daft that the signature of the group is a symbol. Given that we are
stuck with this, then we at least ought to do something about strip --unneeded,
which currently strips out the group symbol.
